The meaning of the terms micro and macro in physics is clear. That is the way I use such terms in general. Microevolution is changes at the microscopic level that can manifest themselves at the macroscopic level, e.g., dog breeding. The genetic changes are minuscule and within a given species. Macroevolution is by nature a change in kind rather than degree and means changes that may not be possible by the passage of “enough” time. Crystals and fluids are of that sort. One cannot continuously go from one to the other. Moorad

I know this is not new turf, but it seems to me that the terms
microevolution and macroevolution are just a bit of sophistry (as is
perhaps contrasting "fact" with "assumption"). Those micro- and macro-
terms and the dividing line between them seem to be artifacts of the
evolution discussion and not descriptive of some well-defined stay-put
dividing line in nature. Calling a spade a spade, isn't the real issue
either the timeline (micro becomes macro with the passage of "enough"
time) or the special creation of man?

Whether intentional or not, your last sentence captures well the
challenge experienced by some of us in attempting to balance intent and
worldview. I wonder if it is a right-brain vs left-brain conflict thing?!